Gun-control group raps Heidi Heitkamp

A gun control group is taking out ads attacking newly elected Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp for labeling gun control proposals under discussion by President Barack Obama’s administration “extreme.”

“Shame on you, Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) for telling the country on Sunday that the Obama Administration’s response to Newtown — which may include universal background checks and a ban on assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines — is ‘extreme,’” the ads, paid for by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, read.

Text Size

-

+

reset

“In truth, 74% of NRA members support criminal background checks on all gun buyers. And a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines could have prevented the loss of precious lives at Newtown, Oak Creek, Aurora, Tucson and Virginia Tech. Blocking common-sense solutions that would keep military-style weapons out of dangerous hands? Now THAT is extreme.”

During appearances on CNN’s “State of the Union” and ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, Heitkamp was dismissive of potential Obama administration responses. “I think you need to put everything on the table, but what I hear from the administration,” she said on “This Week.” “That’s way — way in extreme of what I think is necessary or even should be talked about. And it’s not going to pass.”

The ads, running in POLITICO and Roll Call on Tuesday and in the Fargo Forum and Bismarck Tribune on Wednesday, are signed by parents of victims of massacres at Tucson, Virginia Tech and Aurora.

“Tell Senator Heitkamp it’s time for her to stand up for America’s families, NOT the gun lobby,” the ad reads.

Readers' Comments (4)

"And a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines could have prevented the loss of precious lives at Newtown, Oak Creek, Aurora, Tucson and Virginia Tech."

The first assault weapon ban didn't prevent Columbine. Why would anyone make the claim that such a ban would prevent *any* mass killing?

At the ranges every single one of these mass killings happened a shotgun would have been *far* more destructive. In fact a handgun would have been far more effective. A .223 round at close range is not as damaging as a .40 S&W round regardless of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt the gun control fanatics put forth.

""Blocking common-sense solutions that would keep military-style weapons out of dangerous hands? Now THAT is extreme.”"

These are NOT military style weapons in operation, only in cosmetics. Cosmetics don't kill.

A .223 *is* a hunting round. Lot's of people shoot rifles of this caliber, especially for varmint and coyote hunting.

Consider the woman in Georgia that shot and killed the intruder in her home while protecting her 9 year old twins. She shot all six shots from her revolver at ONE intruder and *still* didn't stop him from being able to escape. What would have happened if there had been TWO assailants????

Those who want to ban *any* form of ARM *are* extreme. There isn't any other way to classify them. And before you go overboard go look up the definition of what an "arm" as mentioned in the 2nd Amendment actually *is*.

YOU PATHETIC WORTHLESS LITTLE SHEEP !!! WHEN WILL YOU STOP RESISTING STATE CONTROL ??

WE THE GOVERNMENT HAVE GUNS...LOTS OF GUNS. BUT YOU PATHETIC LITTLE WORTHLESS CITIZENS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE GUNS !!

YOU ARE PATHETIC. YOU ARE STUPID. YOU MUST BE CONTROLLED BY GOVERNMENT !! HOW CAN WE CONTROL YOU IF YOU ARE ARMED ? HOW CAN WE FORCE YOU TO DO AS WE COMMAND ? HOW CAN WE PUSH YOU INTO SUBMISSION ? YOU MUST BE DISARMED. IT IS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD.